On this page
The short answerThe core differenceWhat to compareThe two platformsComparison tableWhich one fitsFAQKey takeaways
- BoneArc is built around the RTM billing gates — consent, data-days, management time, the monthly call — tracked per patient for independent PT and ortho practices.
- Force Therapeutics is built around the orthopedic surgical episode — education, PROMs, care pathways — historically an enterprise sale to hospitals and large ortho service lines.
- The practical split is who's buying: a clinic capturing RTM revenue on its own panel, versus a health system standardizing a surgical pathway across many surgeons.
- Disclosure: we build BoneArc. Read the comparison with that in mind, and confirm anything decision-relevant directly with both vendors.
BoneArc and Force Therapeutics both show up in orthopedic recovery software searches, but they solve different problems. BoneArc is purpose-built RTM billing automation — it tracks the consent, data-day, management-time, and interactive-call gates per patient and produces a certified, audit-ready monthly record, priced per active patient for independent clinics. Force Therapeutics is an episode-based digital care-management platform for orthopedic surgery, with patient education, PROMs collection, and virtual recovery pathways, typically sold as an enterprise contract to hospitals and large ortho service lines. If your goal is billing RTM on your own panel without adding staff work, that difference matters more than any feature checklist.
The core difference
RTM revenue and orthopedic episode management sit near each other, so it's easy to lump the software into one category. They aren't the same job. RTM billing is a documentation problem at the patient level: did this specific patient log enough data-days, did the practice accumulate enough management minutes, was there a documented interactive call this calendar month, and can all of that be certified and handed to a biller. Episode management is a standardization problem at the program level: does every patient going through a total knee, hip, or rotator cuff pathway at this hospital get the same education, the same PROMs cadence, and the same touchpoints, regardless of which surgeon operated.
A platform can do a competent job at one and only a partial job at the other. That's the lens to bring to this comparison, not a generic feature-for-feature scorecard.
What to actually compare
Who's the buyer. Is the purchase decision made by an independent PT or ortho practice trying to capture revenue on its own panel, or by a hospital system standardizing a pathway across dozens of surgeons? Pricing model, implementation timeline, and support structure all follow from this.
Billing-gate depth. For RTM specifically, ask whether the platform tracks each gate — consent, data-days, management time, the monthly call — per patient and surfaces what's missing before the claim goes out, or whether RTM is a secondary capability layered on top of a broader care-management product.
Therapy plan-of-care fit. If physical therapists are billing under their own plan of care with the GP modifier, confirm the platform actually represents that — not just physician-side surgical episodes.
Scope and scale. A hospital running a standardized pathway across many surgeons has different requirements — and a different budget — than a single clinic trying to bill RTM on the patients already doing a home exercise program.
The two platforms
BoneArc
Disclosure: this is us. BoneArc is built specifically for musculoskeletal RTM — independent PT clinics and orthopedic practices — and its center of gravity is the billing layer: every gate is tracked per patient and rolled into a certified, audit-ready monthly record for your biller. Patients log their assigned home exercise program in an iOS app; providers can upload an existing protocol and BoneArc turns it into an assignable template. Pricing is published per active patient, graduated by panel size. It is deliberately not a hospital-scale episode platform — if the goal is standardizing a surgical pathway across a large multi-surgeon service line with heavy PROMs and education infrastructure, that's a different kind of buy.
Force Therapeutics
Force Therapeutics is an episode-based digital care-management platform with deep roots in orthopedic surgical episodes — patient education, PROMs collection, and virtual recovery pathways — historically sold to hospitals and large ortho service lines. It has a strong clinical-content pedigree and outcomes-data footprint built up over years working with health systems, and is typically an enterprise sale rather than a self-serve, per-patient product. A PT or ortho practice specifically evaluating it for RTM billing should ask pointed questions: how are the consent, data-day, and management-time gates tracked per patient; how is the monthly interactive call documented and attested; and how is PT-billed RTM under the GP modifier and the therapy plan of care represented, as distinct from surgeon-side workflows. These are the same questions worth asking any vendor whose core strength lies outside billing-gate automation.
Comparison at a glance
| BoneArc | Force Therapeutics | |
|---|---|---|
| Built for | MSK RTM billing (PT + ortho) | Orthopedic surgical episodes |
| Center of gravity | Per-patient billing-gate automation & audit-ready records | Episode pathways, education, PROMs collection |
| Typical buyer | Independent PT clinics & ortho practices | Hospitals & large ortho service lines |
| Pricing model | Per active patient, graduated by panel size | Enterprise contract (confirm directly) |
| PT plan-of-care / GP modifier | Built in from the start | Confirm directly — history is surgeon-side |
| Home program capture | Patient-facing iOS app, protocol-driven | Care-pathway content & education modules |
Positioning summarized from BoneArc's own materials and how Force Therapeutics has been described in prior BoneArc content and general industry coverage. Capabilities and pricing change — verify current specifics directly with each vendor before deciding.
Which one fits your practice
If you're an independent PT clinic or ortho practice whose immediate goal is capturing the RTM revenue your home programs already generate — with documentation that holds up — a platform priced and built around per-patient billing-gate automation is the more direct fit. If you're a hospital system or large ortho service line standardizing education, PROMs, and recovery pathways across many surgeons, an enterprise episode-management platform may match your procurement reality and existing relationships better than a per-patient RTM tool.
Some organizations end up wanting both jobs done well and running two products — a system-wide episode platform for standardization, and a billing-focused RTM tool for the revenue capture itself. If you're evaluating either vendor for RTM specifically, ask for the same demo script regardless of who's presenting: one real patient, consent to claim — show the data-days accruing, the time log, the call attestation, and the exact artifact your biller would file from.
Bring one of your home programs to a ten-minute demo and watch BoneArc turn it into a monitored, billable RTM month — gates, attestation, and the audit-ready record included.
Book a demo →FAQ
Is Force Therapeutics an RTM billing platform?
Primarily it's an episode-based digital care-management platform for orthopedic surgery — education, PROMs, and virtual recovery pathways — historically sold to hospitals and large ortho service lines. It can support remote-monitoring workflows, but billing-gate automation per RTM patient isn't its center of gravity. Ask how it tracks consent, data-days, management time, and the monthly call if RTM billing is your goal.
What's the main difference between BoneArc and Force Therapeutics?
BoneArc is built around the RTM billing gates themselves, tracked per patient and rolled into a certified monthly record, priced per active patient. Force Therapeutics is built around the surgical episode as a whole — education, PROMs, care pathways — typically an enterprise contract for hospitals and large ortho groups.
Does Force Therapeutics support PT-billed RTM with the GP modifier?
Its history is surgeon-side and hospital-side episode management, not therapy-specific billing. If a PT practice needs RTM billed under an active therapy plan of care with the GP modifier, confirm directly with Force Therapeutics how that workflow is represented.
Which is better for an independent PT clinic versus a hospital ortho program?
An independent clinic capturing RTM revenue from home-program monitoring is usually better served by a platform priced and built for that job at clinic scale. A hospital system standardizing a pathway across many surgeons may fit an enterprise episode platform better. The deciding factor is whether your primary goal is per-patient RTM billing capture or system-wide episode standardization.
Where can I find current RTM CPT code rates and thresholds?
See BoneArc's 2026 RTM CPT codes guide for current code descriptors, thresholds, and Medicare payment amounts, each independently cited and dated. This comparison article intentionally doesn't restate those figures. Always confirm current amounts with your MAC, locality, and payer contract before billing.